Why US elections only give you two choices

We don’t like the two-party system. So why do we have it?

America’s two-party system is widely hated. Very few Americans think the two major parties do an adequate job representing us, and most say more parties are needed. But when it comes time to vote, very few of us actually vote for third-party candidates. Often, this is explained as either a failure of will (we’d have third parties if more people would just vote for them), or a conspiracy (the political and media establishments suppress third-party candidates and ideas).

And it’s not that those things aren’t true. But there’s a much simpler explanation, and it’s the very basic rule governing almost every single one of our elections: Only one person can win. If you’re American, that probably sounds utterly reasonable: what the hell other kinds of elections even are there? But the answer is: lots. Winner-take-all elections (also called plurality voting, or “first past the post”) are actually a practice that most advanced democracies left behind long ago — and they’re what keep us from having more political options.

Even if you’re not sold on the need for more parties in the US, though, scratch the surface of “only one person can win” a little and you start to see how it actually produces perverse results within the two-party system as well. It’s a big part of why the political parties have moved farther apart from each other, and it leaves about half of the country without any political representation at all. Watch the video above to see how.

00:00 Two choices
1:05 Winner take all elections
3:05 Proportional representation
6:14 How to change things

Sources and further reading:

[alexties]

Honestly as a european the american system seems to me like its on the very edge of being still democratic: You can Vote, but its almost impossible to get rid of whos already in charge.

[Jambajakumba]

The US political atmosphere is a comedy club

[zamangwanezikhali]

Whoever is in charge of your designs and animations KILLS IT!!! My goodness your videos are such a visual treat!!!!🌟

[ratman]

In Australia we have something like "single transferrable vote" that we call "preferential voting"
You're presented with 6 options and number 1-6 where 1 is the representative you most want to win. (there is also an option to vote 1-12 to include more minor parties.) If they don't win, your vote goes to the next person, then down the line until one of them gets enough votes to win. BUT, any party that gets more than 5% of first-preference votes automatically gets an amount of government funding for their next election campaign. This means that smaller parties are more viable because they can build a voterbase over a period of time and slowly accumulate resources for more effective campaigning. Some minor parties do pretty well for themselves with this system.

[Hannodb]

The problem is that both parties enjoyed a joint monopoly on power for over 150 years, and under the current system, it will continue indefinitely. That means both parties has an insentive to _not_ change the electoral system.

[gabrielcrandall]

There is no incentive for Congress to change the system. That fact alone will make proportional representation never happen in the US.

[v]

8:48
"We are one of the oldest, if not the oldest democracy in the world, right?"
Somewhere far away sobbed Greece...

[gosnooky]

It's a common thread in the inner workings of the USA, where we have institutions built on archaic rules that need to be changed, but those who can effect that change have negative incentive to do so.

[yyhkodu]

Both parties collude with each other to keep out other parties.

[claudiofuentes]

The world's oldest democracy is generally considered to be the democracy of ancient Athens, Greece.

[supreme_asian]

I love how Vox has been using the same music library for literal years, just heard a banger I remember hearing back when I was in high school and used for a few of my own vids

[juliegolick]

As a Canadian, I'm still so angry that Trudeau went back on his promise of electoral reform. We have more parties than the US, but our "first past the post" system still favours parties with either large countrywide support (Liberals, Conservatives), or strong regional support (Bloc Quebecois), and disadvantages parties with small but consistent countrywide support (NDP, Greens). In the past election, the NDP had more than twice the votes of the Bloc, but fewer seats in the house, and that's not an aberration – it happens in every election. I was really gunning for mixed-member proportional, but honestly ANY system is better than first past the post.

[frogger]

Two party systems must change. I hope. One day.

[Dadadamirmrsic]

Great video. I think the “ranked choice” graphs could be better explained. It’s difficult to track what vote goes where.

[spaghettiking]

If a one-party state is bad, why is a two-party state much better? Democracy means choice, and choice means options.

[beeCuiet]

The hard part is getting the two parties, who have all the power, to agree to reduce their influence and power so that smaller parties can have some power. The people in the party aren't the issue, it's the parties themselves.

[claytondykstra]

It feels like a missed opportunity not to mention that Maine uses Ranked-Choice Voting, and they do not have a winner-take-all system for electorates in the general election.

[jcfawerd]

Voting is not about supporting the candidate you like, it's about making sure the candidate you hate the most don't get elected

[Custron]

4:52 when talking about the German system, why are you showing a map of Eastern Europe, slightly modified?

[Myne]

I honestly believe the one of the big reasons why Australia hasn't fully devolved into intense partisanship like the US is because of proportional voting. Smaller parties and independent MPs often hold the balance of power, make governments & oppositions more open to working with others rather than acting tribal like Republicans & Democrats do. I remember hearing former Prime Minister Julia Gillard once say how utterly shocked she was talking to American politicians and how unwilling they were to work on issues with the other side.